Posted on

It is Time to Sort Out VAR in Football

Written by; Tao MacLeod


The Video Assistant Referee in football has become something of a joke. Mocked by fans and pundits alike, it has even been derided in advertisements for cereal across British television. If only the match officials had had their wheat based biscuit in the morning, then we could get things back on track again. Public opinion on video based arbitration in football has dropped a long way since its popular introduction. Traditionalists will point to this and state that we should go back to the old ways, placing our trust in the on-field officials, and suggesting that the mistakes that come about from human error balance themselves out over the course of a season. I’ve heard this latter point made time and time again, without any sort of statistical evidence. The more progressive amongst us would say that it could and should be better, if only we could get certain things right. 


This all begs a few questions. How did we get into this situation? What needs to change in football? How does video match officiating work in other sports? Where do we go from here? Can VAR ever actually work? In this article we will look to explore all of these thoughts and make a few suggestions along the way. To start with, however, we shall take a look at how the system actually works in its current setup. 


Scottish Women’s Premier League 2008/09; Boroughmuir Thistle F.C. Vs. Hamilton Academical Ladies F.C. Copyright; Tao MacLeod. Click on the image to listen to the Half Court Press Podcast.

What is VAR?

The Video Assistant Referee is a system that provides several different camera angles for officials to judge what has happened during the course of a match. A specific lead person can be helped by further assistants who all have television monitors providing various perspectives on the same match of football. Each assistant is assigned a different area of the contest and are meant to be in constant communication with each other to provide additional monitoring of the game in a way that helps the on-field referee to adjudicate on activities. 


There are four main areas of concern for these video assistants:

  1. Goal/no goal; has the decision to award (or not to award) a goal been correct? However, this is broadly unnecessary in the leagues that use goal line technology for that very purpose 
  2. Penalty/no penalty; similar to the above point the relevant person is there to help to get this decision correct. Did the ball hit the defender’s hand, was there enough contact to permit a foul, did the player take a dive, was the infringement inside the area? All of these points will be swilling around the head of the assistant
  3. Direct red card; often focused around serious foul play, or violent conduct the VAR will be looking for stuff that the on-pitch ref has missed. Has somebody punched an opponent, whilst s/he thought nobody was looking? Studs up challenges are other things to be keeping an eye on. Major infringements of the rules are up there for red cards as well, such as the denying of a goal scoring opportunity
  4. Mistaken identity; has the on-field referee made a major boo-boo and sent off the wrong person? If so then this is something that can be easily corrected if the VAR is paying attention to the game

The video assistant referee is not there to over rule the on-field referee. Often enough if he, or she thinks that a mistake has been made then the main person will be ‘advised’ to walk over to a TV monitor at the side of the pitch and watch the relevant situation again to decide for his, or herself. Sometimes the decision is explained to the crowd afterwards, whether it’s stayed the same, or altered from the original decision. If the stadium has an electronic scoreboard then a written notice can be shown. Sometimes the match officials are mic’d up and can then verbalise their explanation. However, there isn’t a consistent method for this, due to the variations in facilities in the different stadia. Some tournaments don’t use the system at all. In the English cup competitions it is only used after a certain stage due to the lack of ability of the smaller (poorer) clubs to be able to use such a set-up. Goals are checked every single time, in case of any potential offside positioning from an attacking player. This is often left to play out, sometimes ludicrously so, before being pulled back after a video check of the event.


The Half Court Press editor, Tao MacLeod, has written a book, entitled A Little Book About Hockey. You can buy it now from Amazon, by clicking on the image…

What’s wrong with VAR? How did we get into this situation?

Many decisions from VAR have been scorned from fans and pundits alike. Things have been missed, sometimes inexplicably, prompting the thought that maybe the VAR officials are watching a different game to everybody else. Offside decisions have been made that are so marginal that nobody would have noticed, or indeed complained, in real time, as it didn’t seem to have been enough to have made a difference. We’ve all seen a goal been disallowed due to the attacking players hand, or toe being over the line. To overturn this due to somebody having slightly larger feet, o longer limbs than the defender seems silly. The on-field referee has got the final say, but if he, or she, has been sent to the TV monitor it would seem as if this person feels duty bound to overturn the original decisions, even if it appears wrong to do so. The constant checking of everything, however innocuous, seems unnecessary. This form of pedantry has slowed the game down and taken much of the spontaneity out of the game. 


VAR was brought in to meet a desire for greater accuracy in officiating. Fans wanted to see a fair method of arbitrating matches. Additionally, there is so much money at stake at the top end of the game, winning or losing a fixture based upon an incorrect decision was having financial impacts on the business side of things, prompting the clubs to agree to increased help for referees. Football has the ability to use the various camera angles, it started to appear hard headed from the traditionalists not to introduce something that other sports have used so well. However, the people who designed the system seemed to be so concerned about getting something so comprehensive that considerations around over saturation of information for those tasked with running it, as well as the flow of the game have been ignored. 


Spurs stand at White Hart Lane. Copyright Tao MacLeod. Click on the image to listen to the Half Court Press Podcast.

How does video match officiating work in other sports?

Rugby uses a video refereeing system that shows the replays on the big screen and adds to this with audio between the match officials that can be heard from everybody inside the stadium (players, coaches and fans), as well as those watching on the television. This is a fascinating way of learning more about the game. Any recent rule changes can be explained and discussed after the match and decisions are made out in the open in order to help with the understanding of such things. This is more easily done in this sport, due to the ingrained cultural respect for referees present across the teams and players. It could be a bit harder to do something similar in football, due to the ‘industrial’ style nature of the conversations on the pitch. What has been up until this point family friendly entertainment would suddenly develop issue around pre-watershed content. 


Tennis and field hockey both have a referral system in place. Tennis players are allowed to challenge judge’s decision up to three times. Is he or she gets it wrong they lose one of these, if they get it right then it carries over. The sport uses technology to help with this, the deciding if a ball has landed inside, or outside of the court. In hockey, a team can refer a decision to the video umpire. If a team gets this wrong (often because a player has had an emotional reaction) they then lose the right to appeal and then have to rely on the judgements of the match officials. Unlike in football, the sports of hockey, tennis and rugby all implicitly trust their officials in their judgments and don’t double check every single action. Hockey players are not allowed to make a referral for a sideline ball around and about the half way line. It can only be done for major issues in attacking areas of the pitch. This allows for the game to flow and for goals to be the spontaneous moments of joy that they are meant to be. This can also become a tactical, or intellectual process, at the very least an example of emotional control. If a player wastes the referral early in the game, then the team doesn’t get to use it for a potentially more important situation later on. The players just have to get on with it. Allowing the game to flow, whilst trusting the match officials allows for a greater spectacle.


What needs to change in football? Where do we go from here?

A more progressive outlook in football would always be helpful. The culture within the sport does seem a bit resistant and slow to change. Simply looking at other sports could help move things along. A referral system similar to tennis, or field hockey could work easily. The on-field referee should be trusted to run the game, as s/he deems fit. If a player feels that a mistake has been made then they can make a referral to the VAR, but if wrong then this privilege is taken away. The team would be disadvantaged for an incorrect call, a handy punishment for those who use it to stop a counter attack. We don’t need to look at every single decision. Can VAR ever actually work? Yes, is the answer. However it will need tweaking.



Click on the image to listen to the Half Court Press Podcast.